Convicted rapist fails in appeal
Man argued that he had been misidentified
A High Court ruling deemed the testimony by the complainant as credible and consequently dismissed the appeal application.
"On that particular night, she recognised [her rapist] in the light that shone into her room. At first, he spoke to her and told her, 'Don’t scream,' while placing his hand over her mouth."
This is what High Court judge Claudia Claasen said Tuesday in her ruling on an appeal application in which Johannes Kangango (34) argued that he was wrongly convicted of the violent rape of an elderly woman in Gochas in February 2019.
He was sentenced to 15 years in prison last September in the Mariental Regional Court.
He recently appealed his conviction in the High Court, arguing that the magistrate who heard his case overlooked flaws in the complainant's testimony and wrongly deemed her credible.
Kangango made several claims, including that the complainant had misidentified him.
'Unreliable' testimony
Kangango argued it was likely dark in the woman's corrugated-iron house and claimed that the complainant is allegedly blind in one eye and has only partial sight in the other.
The woman was also reportedly deaf, which he claimed casts doubt on her ability to identify his voice. He also argued that one of the state witnesses alleged that the complainant was drunk on the night of the attack.
In his application, he argued that the complainant was the sole witness able to testify about the incident and that her testimony allegedly contained several shortcomings. On this basis, Kangango contended that the magistrate could not consider her testimony reliable.
He told the court he had an alibi for the night in question, which a friend confirmed in court, stating they were together at the time of the rape.
Kangango argued that the magistrate erred by rejecting his alibi defence, corroborated by a witness, and instead accepting the complainant's version of events as the truth, despite it allegedly lacking support from state witnesses.
'She knew him'
However, judge Claasen ruled that the complainant’s testimony was credible and consequently dismissed Kangango's application.
"The complainant was the sole witness of the rape. Her testimony about the identification of the appellant was clear in all essential respects. This was not a situation in which the attacker was a stranger to her or someone she had only seen a few times. She testified that the appellant had practically grown up in front of her.
"She had therefore known him for a long time and could identify him in all respects," Claasen's ruling declared.
Claasen also noted in her judgment that many grounds in the appeal were lengthy and repetitive.
“Certain grounds lack clarity and do not succinctly capture the matters at hand. Several grounds amount to mere criticism and conjecture.”
– [email protected]
This is what High Court judge Claudia Claasen said Tuesday in her ruling on an appeal application in which Johannes Kangango (34) argued that he was wrongly convicted of the violent rape of an elderly woman in Gochas in February 2019.
He was sentenced to 15 years in prison last September in the Mariental Regional Court.
He recently appealed his conviction in the High Court, arguing that the magistrate who heard his case overlooked flaws in the complainant's testimony and wrongly deemed her credible.
Kangango made several claims, including that the complainant had misidentified him.
'Unreliable' testimony
Kangango argued it was likely dark in the woman's corrugated-iron house and claimed that the complainant is allegedly blind in one eye and has only partial sight in the other.
The woman was also reportedly deaf, which he claimed casts doubt on her ability to identify his voice. He also argued that one of the state witnesses alleged that the complainant was drunk on the night of the attack.
In his application, he argued that the complainant was the sole witness able to testify about the incident and that her testimony allegedly contained several shortcomings. On this basis, Kangango contended that the magistrate could not consider her testimony reliable.
He told the court he had an alibi for the night in question, which a friend confirmed in court, stating they were together at the time of the rape.
Kangango argued that the magistrate erred by rejecting his alibi defence, corroborated by a witness, and instead accepting the complainant's version of events as the truth, despite it allegedly lacking support from state witnesses.
'She knew him'
However, judge Claasen ruled that the complainant’s testimony was credible and consequently dismissed Kangango's application.
"The complainant was the sole witness of the rape. Her testimony about the identification of the appellant was clear in all essential respects. This was not a situation in which the attacker was a stranger to her or someone she had only seen a few times. She testified that the appellant had practically grown up in front of her.
"She had therefore known him for a long time and could identify him in all respects," Claasen's ruling declared.
Claasen also noted in her judgment that many grounds in the appeal were lengthy and repetitive.
“Certain grounds lack clarity and do not succinctly capture the matters at hand. Several grounds amount to mere criticism and conjecture.”
– [email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article